Hi Jean, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking at drivers/platform/x86/silead_dmi.c which is being added > to kernel v4.11 and I do not like what I see. > > This driver is for very specific hardware. Most users won't need it. > Still this driver can only be built into the kernel, no modular option > available. > > Apparently this first issue is caused by the necessity to add the > notifier at a specific point in the init sequence. Do I understand > correctly that the I2C device will be instantiated by the ACPI core as > it enumerates devices found in the ACPI tables, and you want to add the > missing properties at that exact point of the init sequence? Yes. > > As a side note, the comment about the init sequence says: "after i2c > core is initialized and i2c bus itself is ready" but I don't think > there is any actual guarantee on the latter. I see no dependency on > the i2c bus driver, only on the i2c core. What i2c bus driver are we > talking about and how can you be sure it is already loaded at that > point? (Not that it should matter but I'm curious.) We are talking about the i2c bus in the Linux driver model sense, i.e. extern struct bus_type i2c_bus_type; No I2C hardware is needed at this time. > > To make things worse, I see that this driver registers a bus notifier > unconditionally. So it will be registered on virtually _every_ x86 > system out there, and will kick in and perform DMI checks for every I2C > device being added, even though most people don't need it at all. Is > there any excuse for not checking the DMI data _before_ registering the > bus notifier, so the whole thing can be skipped on the 99% of systems > where it is irrelevant? That wouldn't solve the undue memory > consumption but at least it would limit the impact on boot time. If you take a look at next you will see that we no longer register bus notifier unconditionally. I also thought that Hans was going to annotate most of the items as __initconst so that unneeded memory can be discarded after boot, but for that some other patches to device properties should trickle through various subsystems. In the end you'll end up with just the properties for the board you need. > > I have to say I don't understand the whole complexity of the design. As > I understand it, the properties which are being added are only consumed > by the "silead" touchscreen driver. I see no necessity to add the > missing properties before that driver is even loaded. Can't you just > look for the ACPI companion device at the time the silead driver tries > to bind to the i2c device, and add the missing properties before > performing the actual probe? This would be so much simpler. What am I > missing? So the idea is that I am trying to make drivers in input/ platform-independent, and move platform quirks out of them. With generic device properties we can finally move away from ad-hoc platform data, and rely on proper bindings, and that ensures at least some engineering control. So while looking for the ACPI companion device might be indeed very easy, it pushes dependencies on ACPI and platform knowledge into the generic driver, which I am trying to avoid. I believe drivers/platform/x86/ is a good place to stash all x86 platform quirks. I agree that tying this up with I2C bus notifier might not be the best solution overall (it was simply available tight at this time) and we could look into hooking this up into ACPI device enumeration to supply missing properties. > > PS: I hope this code will die, but if it stays, I see that you call > to_i2c_client() on the notified device without checking if it is an > i2c_client. It could be an i2c_adapter instead, and then you are > forcibly mapping a struct i2c_client on top of a struct i2c_adapter. > Good luck when you will access client->name a few lines later... > i2c_verify_client() is what you want to use instead of to_i2c_client() > in that situtation. That is also should be fixed in -next. Because i2c_adapter structure is big enough so that looking up client->name in adapter is not going to blow up, nor will it likely to match, it was decided it could stay till next merge window. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
